Hi!
> > On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
> > > I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
> > > easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
> > > so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which happen not
> > > to be that well
Hi!
On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which happen not
to be that well documented. My
On Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:48, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
>
> On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
> > I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
> > easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
>
On Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:48, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
so I
Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
> I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
> easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
> so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which
Ok, I've thought some more but I still don't know ...
On 12.02.2007 01:10 I wrote:
I don't doubt your basic assessment. However it doesn't translate that
easily into a real implementation. In my case, I maintain a USB driver,
so I have to deal with USB specifics of suspend/resume which happen
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Why a new flag?
>
> For example, there are drivers that define .suspend() and .resume() which
> do not work correctly and we can use the flag to mark them.
Depending on how serious the problems with these .suspend/.resume()s
are, you could also put a printk in them or
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Why a new flag?
For example, there are drivers that define .suspend() and .resume() which
do not work correctly and we can use the flag to mark them.
Depending on how serious the problems with these .suspend/.resume()s
are, you could also put a printk in them or #if
Hi!
> > >I would disagree that it's a peripheral issue, it's pretty core these
> > >days, at least for any hardware that you can stuff in a laptop (though a
> > >fair number of desktops get suspended and resumed these days too).
> >
> > Servers are still the most important Linux market, and don't
On Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:42, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
> > I think we can introduce a "pm_safe" flag that will indicate if the driver
> > handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the
> > drivers
> > currently in the tree as "pm_safe"
Hi!
> > I think your experience is rather different than that of Joe Average
> > User who doesn't frequent kernel lists, and also I think you'll find
> > that for a lot of Linux laptop users that don't use supend, the reason
> > is that it doesn't work reliably, quite often due to driver
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:55:18AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
> the "release early, release often" mantra.
Exactly.
> Which means we really have to be more accomodating of
> drivers that start out simple, and then gain all of the
> non-essential
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus:
- What if I'm planning to implement the power managemet, but not just right
now?
Why not right now?
LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
the "release early, release often" mantra.
Which
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Probably that you got the wrong laptop. If you buy an ultra-thin with highly
proprietary hardware, it may be hard. But if you choose in profesionnal ranges,
there is rarely any problem. I have a compaq nc8000 on which everything works
fine, and it boots in about 20 seconds.
Geert Uytterhoeven schrieb:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
>> > It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
>>
>> Unfortunately, drivers currently assume "NULL == nothing is needed",
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
> I think we can introduce a "pm_safe" flag that will indicate if the driver
> handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the drivers
> currently in the tree as "pm_safe" unless we know that they aren't. Next,
> we can convert the core to fail
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
I think we can introduce a pm_safe flag that will indicate if the driver
handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the drivers
currently in the tree as pm_safe unless we know that they aren't. Next,
we can convert the core to fail the
Geert Uytterhoeven schrieb:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
Unfortunately, drivers currently assume NULL == nothing is needed,
More often than
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Probably that you got the wrong laptop. If you buy an ultra-thin with highly
proprietary hardware, it may be hard. But if you choose in profesionnal ranges,
there is rarely any problem. I have a compaq nc8000 on which everything works
fine, and it boots in about 20 seconds.
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus:
- What if I'm planning to implement the power managemet, but not just right
now?
Why not right now?
LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
the release early, release often mantra.
Which
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:55:18AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
LKML is much more receptive to drivers that follow
the release early, release often mantra.
Exactly.
Which means we really have to be more accomodating of
drivers that start out simple, and then gain all of the
non-essential
Hi!
I think your experience is rather different than that of Joe Average
User who doesn't frequent kernel lists, and also I think you'll find
that for a lot of Linux laptop users that don't use supend, the reason
is that it doesn't work reliably, quite often due to driver issues.
I
On Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:42, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki schrieb:
I think we can introduce a pm_safe flag that will indicate if the driver
handles suspend/resume correctly. If we do it, we can flag all of the
drivers
currently in the tree as pm_safe unless we know
Hi!
I would disagree that it's a peripheral issue, it's pretty core these
days, at least for any hardware that you can stuff in a laptop (though a
fair number of desktops get suspended and resumed these days too).
Servers are still the most important Linux market, and don't care
about
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 21:06 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Nope. I'm assuming that the driver author knows what needs to be done to
> > get the driver out of whatever state the BIOS puts it in to start with,
> > and into an
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 06:19 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> One less "myth" as Nigel would say call it ;-)
You know me too well! :>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Monday, 12 February 2007 22:24, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
> > > > > >
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
> > > > > have a
> > > > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
> > > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
> > > > to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
> > > >
> > > > .resume
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:57 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
> > > It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
> >
> > Unfortunately, drivers
Hi!
> > > If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
> > > shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
> > > to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
> > >
> > > .resume = generic_empty_resume;
> > >
> > > To me at least, that doesn't
On Monday, 12 February 2007 17:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power
> > > > > > management as
> > > > > > standard.
> > > >
> > > > > What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
> > > >
> > > > You would still want to
On Monday, 12 February 2007 13:59, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but
On Monday, 12 February 2007 06:19, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:26:52AM +, Alan wrote:
> > > Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
> > > - once at suspend
> > > - once at resume
> > >
> > > which is once more per "boot" than what I'm doing on
On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:10 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > >> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:59:40AM -0500, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Many people also have Linux on their
Hi!
> > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > >
> > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > > they
> > >
Hi!
> > > > > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management
> > > > > as
> > > > > standard.
> > >
> > > > What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
> > >
> > > You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that you'd do
> > > for module
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> >
> > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > they
> >
Hi!
> > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
>
> > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
> ^^^
> >
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:46:36 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
> Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual-boot. You
> read the word ? "dual-boot". It means that they cleanly shutdown their
> system every time they don't use it anymore, and they won't know what
> OS
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual-boot. You
> read the word ? "dual-boot". It means that
>
> By adding dummy functions, wouldn't that just look awkward ?
not really; if you have a template
pm_no_suspend_needed
and
pm_no_restore_needed
functions, and just make it part of ALL device structs that don't need
it.. it's not that bad
or maybe
pm_generic_no_suspend
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> What about this:
>
> "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
What about this:
If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
By adding dummy functions, wouldn't that just look awkward ?
not really; if you have a template
pm_no_suspend_needed
and
pm_no_restore_needed
functions, and just make it part of ALL device structs that don't need
it.. it's not that bad
or maybe
pm_generic_no_suspend
pm_generic_no_resume
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual-boot. You
read the word ? dual-boot. It means that they
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:46:36 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a dual-boot. You
read the word ? dual-boot. It means that they cleanly shutdown their
system every time they don't use it anymore, and they won't know what
OS they'll use
Hi!
If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know they
^^^
have to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
they
Hi!
Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management
as
standard.
What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that you'd do
for module load/unload.
By adding dummy
Hi!
If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
they
^^^
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:59:40AM -0500, Gerhard Mack wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as
On Monday, 12 February 2007 06:19, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:26:52AM +, Alan wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
- once at suspend
- once at resume
which is once more per boot than what I'm doing on loop-aes.
On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Howdy!
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:10 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
If
On Monday, 12 February 2007 13:59, Gerhard Mack wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:37:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 23:20 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Many people also have Linux on their notebooks, but as a
On Monday, 12 February 2007 17:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power
management as
standard.
What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that
Hi!
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
.resume = generic_empty_resume;
To me at least, that doesn't look awkward, and says
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:57 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
Can't the upper layer just assume -ENOSYS if .resume/.suspend is NULL?
It's nicer if you don't have to implement dummy functions at all.
Unfortunately, drivers currently assume
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we have a
shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is adding
to your struct pci_device (or whatever)
.resume =
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
have a
shared function that does that, all we're talking about doing is
adding
On Monday, 12 February 2007 22:24, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2007 21:58, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
If all you need to do is say 'I don't need to do anything' and we
have a
shared
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 06:19 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
One less myth as Nigel would say call it ;-)
You know me too well! :
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 21:06 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 12 February 2007 05:08, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Nope. I'm assuming that the driver author knows what needs to be done to
get the driver out of whatever state the BIOS puts it in to start with,
and into an
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:26:52AM +, Alan wrote:
> > Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
> > - once at suspend
> > - once at resume
> >
> > which is once more per "boot" than what I'm doing on loop-aes.
>
> You don't need to type in a key at suspend time if
Howdy!
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:10 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> >>> If your device requires power management, and you know it
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
management, why not just implement power management? [...]
Like it or not, power management is far from trivial, and people
writing device drivers have limited resources. [...]
It's not that complex.
On Monday, 12 February 2007 01:28, Alan wrote:
> > +PM support:Since Linux is used on many portable and desktop
> > systems, your
> > + driver is likely to be used on such a system and therefore it
> > + should support basic power management by implementing, if
> > +
Hi,
On Monday, 12 February 2007 01:10, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> >>> If your device requires power management, and you know it
> +PM support: Since Linux is used on many portable and desktop systems, your
> + driver is likely to be used on such a system and therefore it
> + should support basic power management by implementing, if
> + necessary, the .suspend and .resume methods used
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 01:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:55, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > >
> Unless I'm mistaken, I have to type the passphrase twice then :
> - once at suspend
> - once at resume
>
> which is once more per "boot" than what I'm doing on loop-aes.
You don't need to type in a key at suspend time if you don't want to.
Think about gpg email - I can send you an
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:55, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > I'm using M$
Hi,
Am 11.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 00:45 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
>>> If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
>>> management, why not just implement power management? [...]
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
> > > > card
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:47, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
> > > card that Linux doesn't support well yet), and I know other Suspend2
> > > users
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm using M$ hibernation and Suspend2 to dual boot on our desktop (dtv
> > card that Linux doesn't support well yet), and I know other Suspend2
> > users doing the same. It's made earier by the fact that Suspend2 lets
> > you
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:38 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:18:42AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Hmm sorry, but we don't have the same usages of notebooks. For no reason
> > > would I keep documents open, for two reasons :
> > >
> > > - when I
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
>
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:26:26AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:29 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
> > > > device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't
> > > >
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:18:42AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
[snip]
> > Hmm sorry, but we don't have the same usages of notebooks. For no reason
> > would I keep documents open, for two reasons :
> >
> > - when I shutdown my notebook, it is to move from one customer to
> >
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 03:25 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 02:57 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> > > On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neither am I. I'm just asking
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:40, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, it's probably more acceptable than silently doing nothing and the
> > > device failing or locking up the machine on resume, but I couldn't agree
> > >
Hi!
> >> > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
> >> > standard.
> >
> >> What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
> >
> >You would still want to do the cleanup and configuration that you'd do
> >for module load/unload.
> >
>
> By adding dummy
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:21 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will
> > > > > know they
> > > > > have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you
> > > > > aren't sure
> > > > > whether or not the
On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 02:57 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
> > standard.
> What if the hardware
Hi!
> > > - built in;
> > > - modular, loaded while suspending but not loaded prior to resume from
> > > disk;
> > > - modular, loaded while suspending and loaded prior to resume from disk;
> >
> > I think we should state the general rule in Documentation/SubmittingDrivers
> > and give more
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:16 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:10, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, Alan wrote:
> > > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at
> > > > > least
> > > > >
Hi!
> > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > > they
> > > > have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you
> > > > aren't sure
> > > > whether or not the device requires .suspend and .resume, define
> > > > .suspend that
> > > >
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:10, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, Alan wrote:
> > > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > > they
> > > >
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 02:57 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
> > standard.
> What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
You would still want to do
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 23:46 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:52 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:31:14PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > >Nigel, don't take it as a personal offense, but I think it is a very
On Monday, 12 February 2007 00:06, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
> > > kernel
> > > feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
> >
> > That's true, but
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 21:02 +, Alan wrote:
> > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > they
> > > have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you aren't
> Hmm sorry, but we don't have the same usages of notebooks. For no reason
> would I keep documents open, for two reasons :
>
> - when I shutdown my notebook, it is to move from one customer to
> home/company/another customer. There's no related work anyway, the
> network will have
On Sunday, 11 February 2007 22:02, Alan wrote:
> > > "If the device requires that, implement .suspend and .resume or at least
> > > define .suspend that will always return -ENOSYS (then people will know
> > > they
> > > have to unload the driver before the suspend). Similarly, if you aren't
> >
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 19:53 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Having drivers explicitly marked as to whether they are safe is a good
> > kernel
> > feature; what to do if they're not is policy.
>
> That's true, but I assume that the people who opt for doing that are also
> willing to take
On 2/12/07, Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neither am I. I'm just asking that new drivers have power management as
standard.
What if the hardware doesn't support power management ?
regards,
manu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
Hi.
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 12:13 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > instead of modifying all drivers to explicitly state that they don't support
> > it, we should start with a test of the NULL pointer for .suspend which
> > should
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
